An advertisement in your paper from the ministry of rural development inviting expressions of interest for urban amenities in rural areas (July 27) raises issues of larger priorities. The selected private partner is required to provide amenities like water supply and sewerage, drainage, solid waste management, street lighting, “economic activity” and “skill development” in the panchayats. The private partner has also been given the option of “add on revenue-sharing” facilities, one of which is “village-linked tourism”. This is a bane and not a boon. How does this issue get priority over pressing concerns in villages, such as maternal care, safe deliveries and child malnutrition? This is not all. The finance minister periodically talks of the need for banks to extend financial inclusion to villages with populations of at least 2,000 people. That is a good objective but one that should come after basic health facilities are provided.
States contribute to the confused priorities in a different way. For instance, Tamil Nadu recently announced that it was setting up primary health centres in 135 places but the criterion is a population of 100,000 or less. Such towns, in fact, should have hospitals of a better standard and not compete with villages for primary health centres. Thus, either way, villages lose out even after six decades of planning. Back, therefore, to the Planning Commission to sort out what we intend to do for villages.
S Subramanyan, Navi Mumbai
Letters can be mailed, faxed or e-mailed to:
The Editor, Business Standard
Nehru House, 4 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
New Delhi 110 002
Fax: (011) 23720201 · E-mail: letters@bsmail.in
All letters must have a postal address and telephone number
